Forums of the Megaverse®

Mandalorian wrote:One of the things holding back the errata was work on the Best of The Rifters book one hopes with that out of the way they will finally get to it.

As for not using this thread for errata sorry but i disagree. Do you know how long it's going to take before all the mistakes are mailed in. The errata is already about six months late I do not want to wait another six months for it to come out. Not using their own forum to verify for mistakes in RUE would be a HUGE step backward imo.

Sureshot,

This thred is filled with people arguing about this and arguing about that, saying this is errata and this is not. This needs to be added/not added.

For them to use this thread would be like someone walking through a High School Cafeteria During a Food Fight in order to catalogue what the kids ate for lunch that day.

~ Josh

Or, 2D6, 4D6 etc. have no exceptional attributes. As simple as that.

But why would 3D6?

Well, 3D6 represents the human level, human's are exceptional at adapting and showing great variety amongst themselves. So anyone with a human level attribute will have a larger range of variety = 3 to 30 (with 18-30 RARE), while those with 4D6 will have their range 4-24 (though 18-24 would be much more common than the 3D6's 18-30).

~ Josh

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:Sureshot,

This thred is filled with people arguing about this and arguing about that, saying this is errata and this is not. This needs to be added/not added.

For them to use this thread would be like someone walking through a High School Cafeteria During a Food Fight in order to catalogue what the kids ate for lunch that day.

~ Josh

Come on Josh not all of the information in this thread is pointless arguing. A small amount of it is most of it is errata. In any case whatever method they use to find/fix the errata I ask that it not take half a year. Writing a book i can understand delays but errata should not be taking this long imo.

Here's another item needing to be fixed:

RUE, p. 305: "Within the CS, only scientists, engineers, military leaders and the elite aristocracy are literate..."

RUE, p. 88: "City Rats are the denizens of the 'Burbs and big cities. In the fortress cities modeled after Chi-Town, those who live in the lower levels are..."City Rat" is a designation for a Downsider troublemaker and the street urchins who run amok in the 'Burbs. ... They exist in most urban environments, but absolutely thrive in the 'Burbs and the lower levels, tunnels, and sewers of Chi-Town, Iron Heart, and other mega-cities of the Coalition States."
"O.C.C. Skills:
Literate in Native Language..."

C'mon folks, when are we going to stop with the nonsense that literacy is rare in Rifts (not too mention PF)?

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:Here's another item needing to be fixed:

RUE, p. 305: "Within the CS, only scientists, engineers, military leaders and the elite aristocracy are literate..."

RUE, p. 88: "City Rats are the denizens of the 'Burbs and big cities. In the fortress cities modeled after Chi-Town, those who live in the lower levels are..."City Rat" is a designation for a Downsider troublemaker and the street urchins who run amok in the 'Burbs. ... They exist in most urban environments, but absolutely thrive in the 'Burbs and the lower levels, tunnels, and sewers of Chi-Town, Iron Heart, and other mega-cities of the Coalition States."
"O.C.C. Skills:
Literate in Native Language..."

City Rats need it cause they are technophiles i guess.
Computer Hackers and the like.

I agree, it should be a Related Skill to pick up though.
C'mon folks, when are we going to stop with the nonsense that literacy is rare in Rifts (not too mention PF)?

TechnoGothic wrote:

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:Here's another item needing to be fixed:

RUE, p. 305: "Within the CS, only scientists, engineers, military leaders and the elite aristocracy are literate..."

RUE, p. 88: "City Rats are the denizens of the 'Burbs and big cities. In the fortress cities modeled after Chi-Town, those who live in the lower levels are..."City Rat" is a designation for a Downsider troublemaker and the street urchins who run amok in the 'Burbs. ... They exist in most urban environments, but absolutely thrive in the 'Burbs and the lower levels, tunnels, and sewers of Chi-Town, Iron Heart, and other mega-cities of the Coalition States."
"O.C.C. Skills:
Literate in Native Language..."

City Rats need it cause they are technophiles i guess.
Computer Hackers and the like.

Sure, okay, whatever. That's not the point. The point is that supposedly only "scienntists, engineers, military leaders and the elite aristocracy" are literate in the CS, yet the statement is directly contradicted by the fact that City Rats (who live in the CS especially) are ALL literate....especially when literacy is supposed to be rare (uneducated punks are all literate though which makes you wonder just how rare literacy really is in Rifts).

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:Here's another item needing to be fixed:

RUE, p. 305: "Within the CS, only scientists, engineers, military leaders and the elite aristocracy are literate..."

RUE, p. 88: "City Rats are the denizens of the 'Burbs and big cities. In the fortress cities modeled after Chi-Town, those who live in the lower levels are..."City Rat" is a designation for a Downsider troublemaker and the street urchins who run amok in the 'Burbs. ... They exist in most urban environments, but absolutely thrive in the 'Burbs and the lower levels, tunnels, and sewers of Chi-Town, Iron Heart, and other mega-cities of the Coalition States."
"O.C.C. Skills:
Literate in Native Language..."

City Rats need it cause they are technophiles i guess.
Computer Hackers and the like.

Sure, okay, whatever. That's not the point. The point is that supposedly only "scienntists, engineers, military leaders and the elite aristocracy" are literate in the CS, yet the statement is directly contradicted by the fact that City Rats (who live in the CS especially) are ALL literate....especially when literacy is supposed to be rare (uneducated punks are all literate though which makes you wonder just how rare literacy really is in Rifts).

It says fortress cities modeled after Chi-Town, not Chi-Town itself.

City Rats are not citizens of the CS, especially those living in the Burbs.

~ Josh

Mandalorian wrote:

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:Sureshot,

This thred is filled with people arguing about this and arguing about that, saying this is errata and this is not. This needs to be added/not added.

For them to use this thread would be like someone walking through a High School Cafeteria During a Food Fight in order to catalogue what the kids ate for lunch that day.

~ Josh

Come on Josh not all of the information in this thread is pointless arguing. A small amount of it is most of it is errata. In any case whatever method they use to find/fix the errata I ask that it not take half a year. Writing a book i can understand delays but errata should not be taking this long imo.

Sureshot,

I didn't say that all is pointless arguing.

I was pointing out that they would have to wade through the arguments to find the errata...errata that may be in contention.



~ Josh

Not all city rats are literate. All City Rat PLAYER CHARACTERS are literate. The P.C.s are supposed to be adventurers who have a little more of an advantage than the average member of that class.

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:Here's another item needing to be fixed:

RUE, p. 305: "Within the CS, only scientists, engineers, military leaders and the elite aristocracy are literate..."

RUE, p. 88: "City Rats are the denizens of the 'Burbs and big cities. In the fortress cities modeled after Chi-Town, those who live in the lower levels are..."City Rat" is a designation for a Downsider troublemaker and the street urchins who run amok in the 'Burbs. ... They exist in most urban environments, but absolutely thrive in the 'Burbs and the lower levels, tunnels, and sewers of Chi-Town, Iron Heart, and other mega-cities of the Coalition States."
"O.C.C. Skills:
Literate in Native Language..."

City Rats need it cause they are technophiles i guess.
Computer Hackers and the like.

Sure, okay, whatever. That's not the point. The point is that supposedly only "scienntists, engineers, military leaders and the elite aristocracy" are literate in the CS, yet the statement is directly contradicted by the fact that City Rats (who live in the CS especially) are ALL literate....especially when literacy is supposed to be rare (uneducated punks are all literate though which makes you wonder just how rare literacy really is in Rifts).

It says fortress cities modeled after Chi-Town, not Chi-Town itself.

Yes, it says Chi-Town itself.

City Rats are not citizens of the CS, especially those living in the Burbs.

Irrelevant, it doesn't say "the following citizens of the CS are literate," it says "within the CS."

The Galactus Kid wrote:Not all city rats are literate. All City Rat PLAYER CHARACTERS are literate. The P.C.s are supposed to be adventurers who have a little more of an advantage than the average member of that class.

:rolleyes: Rejected as unsubstantiated.

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:

City Rats are not citizens of the CS, especially those living in the Burbs.

Irrelevant, it doesn't say "the following citizens of the CS are literate," it says "within the CS."

Not irrelevant.

I would consider "within the CS" to mean CS Citizens, not every puke living within the borders of a Coalition State.

If someone wanted to do a literacy rating for people living "Within the USA," they wouldn' count illegal aliens. Same deal.

~ Josh

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:

The Galactus Kid wrote:Not all city rats are literate. All City Rat PLAYER CHARACTERS are literate. The P.C.s are supposed to be adventurers who have a little more of an advantage than the average member of that class.

:rolleyes: Rejected as unsubstantiated.

Just how many City Rats do you think there are running around? Please substantiate the percentage of the CS popultation that falls under this OCC

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:Sureshot,

I didn't say that all is pointless arguing.

I was pointing out that they would have to wade through the arguments to find the errata...errata that may be in contention.



~ Josh

Agreed to some extent. Most of those who post the errata post the proper sources so imo it would not be in contention. I do not understand your relucatance to using this thread for errata. You think one would want to get it as soon as possible.

Second I ask to those not contributing any errata to start seperate topics. this thread is for errata.

I do not mean to be a pest but anyword on when this is getting released on the web?

More that must be fixed:

Pg 203 under Invisiblity Simple: "Aggressive action (Including combat) will NOT terminate an invisibility spell (Either simple or Superior)."

Pg 213 under Invisibility Superior: "The magic is only broken if the character makes a hostile move, or engages in combat/attacks. At that instant he becomes completely visible."

Dark Brandon wrote:More that must be fixed:

Pg 203 under Invisiblity Simple: "Aggressive action (Including combat) will NOT terminate an invisibility spell (Either simple or Superior)."

Pg 213 under Invisibility Superior: "The magic is only broken if the character makes a hostile move, or engages in combat/attacks. At that instant he becomes completely visible."

I believe that has already been mentioned in this thread (I know it was mentioned on the boards after rue came out)

It says on p. 94, in the Rogue Scholar's O.C.C. skills: "W.P. Energy Pistol or Rifle." I originally interpreted the second option to be W.P. Energy Rifle, but for the Rogue Scientist (p. 96) and Vagabond (p.97) it specifically says "W.P. Energy Pistol or Energy Rifle." Is it possible the Rogue Scholar is supposed to choose between Energy Pistol and Conventional Rifle?

My call would be Energy Rifle, but if that's correct, it should be written consistently.

As pointed out by abjurer here:

RUE p.158 col.1 under "Magic Knowledge": "Two spells can be cast per melee round [...]"

Magic is cast by actions now. This needs rewording. If dragons can only expend a maximum number of actions on spellcasting per melee, then it needs to be noted that way.

Thinyser wrote:

Dark Brandon wrote:More that must be fixed:

Pg 203 under Invisiblity Simple: "Aggressive action (Including combat) will NOT terminate an invisibility spell (Either simple or Superior)."

Pg 213 under Invisibility Superior: "The magic is only broken if the character makes a hostile move, or engages in combat/attacks. At that instant he becomes completely visible."

I believe that has already been mentioned in this thread (I know it was mentioned on the boards after rue came out)

Note: By clicking on the printer icon next to the "Post Reply" icon (at either the top left or bottom left of the page), you can display a simplified list of the topic.

In the top right corner, it says "Select messages from". Here you have to manually adjust the topics-displayed numbers to "1" and "some artificially high number past the highest post", and click "Show".

This will display the entire topic.

You can do cntl-f (in most browsers) to search for the text in the topic directly.

This can be helpful in locating previously posted material.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Dark Brandon wrote:More that must be fixed:

Pg 203 under Invisiblity Simple: "Aggressive action (Including combat) will NOT terminate an invisibility spell (Either simple or Superior)."

Pg 213 under Invisibility Superior: "The magic is only broken if the character makes a hostile move, or engages in combat/attacks. At that instant he becomes completely visible."

I believe that has already been mentioned in this thread (I know it was mentioned on the boards after rue came out)

Note: By clicking on the printer icon next to the "Post Reply" icon (at either the top left or bottom left of the page), you can display a simplified list of the topic.

In the top right corner, it says "Select messages from". Here you have to manually adjust the topics-displayed numbers to "1" and "some artificially high number past the highest post", and click "Show".

This will display the entire topic.

You can do cntl-f (in most browsers) to search for the text in the topic directly.

This can be helpful in locating previously posted material.

Sweet dude thanks for the tip!

Spyder wrote:So the Line Walker's occ related skills (page 116) say that they can only get Communications: Radio Basic only. How come they can't get Literacy or other language skills. Seems like the occ related list was a copy from RMB. Any thoughts on this?

They can take language and literacy skills as Technical skills.

So any news on when the second printing will be available? Or is it still to early to tell?

Mandalorian wrote:So any news on when the second printing will be available? Or is it still to early to tell?

As soon as the first printing goes out of print (i.e. they sell all copies that they have)...which could be months or years.

~ Josh

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:As soon as the first printing goes out of print (i.e. they sell all copies that they have)...which could be months or years.

~ Josh

I hope it's only months. As much as i want to buy the book I rather get one with errata in it.

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:

Mandalorian wrote:So any news on when the second printing will be available? Or is it still to early to tell?

As soon as the first printing goes out of print (i.e. they sell all copies that they have)...which could be months or years.

Considering all of us know they are full of errors, it will probably be years until we get a revised edition.

Mandalorian wrote:

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:As soon as the first printing goes out of print (i.e. they sell all copies that they have)...which could be months or years.

~ Josh

I hope it's only months. As much as i want to buy the book I rather get one with errata in it.

If you don't buy the current edition, it will stay in print just a little longer.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Mandalorian wrote:I hope it's only months. As much as i want to buy the book I rather get one with errata in it.

If you don't buy the current edition, it will stay in print just a little longer.

I know. And despite that, I'm still going to buy a copy. I'll just have to give it to one of my friends as a birthday gift or something.

RainOfSteel wrote:
If you don't buy the current edition, it will stay in print just a little longer.

Then I will just have to get it used or through Amazon at a discount. No way am I paying full price for it.

Here's hoping that the errata pdf gets posted soon.

Oh dear god...23 pages to scroll through...

This is going to take a couple of days!

Tenchi Jeff wrote:Found one!


Page 329, the following W.P.'s, Energy Pistol, Energy Rifle, and Mega-Damage Weapons. There is not any W.P. Bonuses listed for these.

Wouldn't that be in the combat section again? Y'know, the old +3 Aimed, +1 Burst, no bonus wild...

Actual Errata

RE: Ballistic Fire

RUE p.212 col.1: Ballistic Fire's spell description.

The last sentence says the spell takes only one spellcasting action, or 7 seconds. This is a reference to the pre-RUE spellcasting system, and needs to be updated.

Borast wrote:

Tenchi Jeff wrote:Found one!


Page 329, the following W.P.'s, Energy Pistol, Energy Rifle, and Mega-Damage Weapons. There is not any W.P. Bonuses listed for these.

Wouldn't that be in the combat section again? Y'know, the old +3 Aimed, +1 Burst, no bonus wild...

WP bonuses and the Aimed/Burst bonuses are separate things.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Borast wrote:

Tenchi Jeff wrote:Found one!


Page 329, the following W.P.'s, Energy Pistol, Energy Rifle, and Mega-Damage Weapons. There is not any W.P. Bonuses listed for these.

Wouldn't that be in the combat section again? Y'know, the old +3 Aimed, +1 Burst, no bonus wild...

WP bonuses and the Aimed/Burst bonuses are separate things.

+3 Aimed +1 Burst went out the window a long time ago.

The bonuses for Modern W.P.s can be found on RUE page 360.

~ Josh

RainOfSteel wrote:Actual Errata

RE: Ballistic Fire

RUE p.212 col.1: Ballistic Fire's spell description.

The last sentence says the spell takes only one spellcasting action, or 7 seconds. This is a reference to the pre-RUE spellcasting system, and needs to be updated.

Not Errata.

As a level 7 spell, Ballistic Fire takes two actions (about 7 seconds).

~ Josh

Borast wrote:Oh dear god...23 pages to scroll through...

This is going to take a couple of days!

Most of it is arguing, debate or repeated errata...so, don't worry.



~ Josh

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:Not Errata.

As a level 7 spell, Ballistic Fire takes two actions (about 7 seconds).

~ Josh

Except that the text says it takes only a single spell attack.

So it is errata.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:Not Errata.

As a level 7 spell, Ballistic Fire takes two actions (about 7 seconds).

~ Josh

Except that the text says it takes only a single spell attack.

So it is errata.

Yeah a single spell attack, and a single spell attack for a seventh level spell counts as two attacks. A "single spell attack" for a spell levels 1-5 would count as one attack.

So, it is not errata.

~ Josh

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:Yeah a single spell attack, and a single spell attack for a seventh level spell counts as two attacks. A "single spell attack" for a spell levels 1-5 would count as one attack.

A single spell attack is a single action. Single = single. Single <> double/two.

The point is, the phrasing in the spell is a hold-over from the previous spellcasting system, and that phrasing should not be there, at all.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:Yeah a single spell attack, and a single spell attack for a seventh level spell counts as two attacks. A "single spell attack" for a spell levels 1-5 would count as one attack.

A single spell attack is a single action. Single = single. Single <> double/two.

The point is, the phrasing in the spell is a hold-over from the previous spellcasting system, and that phrasing should not be there, at all.

I thought about it, and for clarity and simplicity's sake, I agree.

~ Josh

Re: prerequisites for OCC skills not listed:
I read somewhere (that I can't find now) that if you get a skill as an OCC skill (not OCC related), that you automatically get the prerequisite, even if it's not listed. I remember because I was particularly happy with the rules clarification. Ah, there it is: page 299, para 2.

Errata: Wilderness Scouts automatically get Horsemanship(General), then get the option of "Pilot: Motorcycle, Hovercycle, or Horsemanship(General) *again*", and then can't start with a horse.

Errata: Under the list of what can and can't be taken as a secondary skill, "Blending" is banned, yet it doesn't show up anywhere else in the skill section or anywhere else I've found in the book.

Errata: "Mind Block" on p169 is missing the note included in the same on p174.

Re: multiple d6 for stats:
I figured everyone gets 3d6 to start. If the RCC gets 4d6, then they have a 'bonus' of 1d6 that is rolled after exceptionality is determined. If it's 2d6, then they have a 'penalty' of 1d6. One of the initial dice rolled is made a different color and removed from the total after exceptionality is determined. This fits directly with the rules stated in both the RMB and URMB.

Personally, I was put out by the new book initially, but I'm starting to see how the changes fit together. Kudo's on the organization of the book and apparent binding quality, though I was disappointed on the amount of Errata that is needed.

Is there _any_ errata posted _anywhere_ on the net for _any_ of PB's books? I looked on their webpage, and this is the only thing I found...

Count Jester wrote:Re: prerequisites for OCC skills not listed:
I read somewhere (that I can't find now) that if you get a skill as an OCC skill (not OCC related), that you automatically get the prerequisite, even if it's not listed. I remember because I was particularly happy with the rules clarification. Ah, there it is: page 299, para 2.

I don't seem to read the RUE p.299 col.1 para.2 reference the same way you are reading it. It doesn't mention anything about prerequisites.

Count Jester wrote:Errata: Wilderness Scouts automatically get Horsemanship(General), then get the option of "Pilot: Motorcycle, Hovercycle, or Horsemanship(General) *again*", and then can't start with a horse.

I see the first part. But the only reason a Wilderness Scout might not start with a horse that I can see is a lack of money (depending on the price of horses).

If you want to house-rule that Wilderness Scouts start with horses, I don't think you will be met with protest marches in the street. It sounds reasonable to me.

Count Jester wrote:Errata: Under the list of what can and can't be taken as a secondary skill, "Blending" is banned, yet it doesn't show up anywhere else in the skill section or anywhere else I've found in the book.

I assume you mean RUE p.300 col.2, under Wilderness Skills?

You are correct, this skill is not in RUE. It is in the Game Master's Guide.

Count Jester wrote:Errata: "Mind Block" on p169 is missing the note included in the same on p174.

I see that one, as well.

Count Jester wrote:Re: multiple d6 for stats:
I figured everyone gets 3d6 to start. If the RCC gets 4d6, then they have a 'bonus' of 1d6 that is rolled after exceptionality is determined. If it's 2d6, then they have a 'penalty' of 1d6. One of the initial dice rolled is made a different color and removed from the total after exceptionality is determined. This fits directly with the rules stated in both the RMB and URMB.

Can you please provide the references that discuss this?

Count Jester wrote:Is there _any_ errata posted _anywhere_ on the net for _any_ of PB's books? I looked on their webpage, and this is the only thing I found...

No. There is no officially posted errata that I know of as of yet. (Watch, it'll have been posted a hour ago . . .)

EDIT---------

I was thinking of RUE only in regards to errata.

Count Jester wrote:Is there _any_ errata posted _anywhere_ on the net for _any_ of PB's books? I looked on their webpage, and this is the only thing I found...

Try the The Cutting Room Floor for errata of some of the other books.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Count Jester wrote:Re: prerequisites for OCC skills not listed:
I read somewhere (that I can't find now) that if you get a skill as an OCC skill (not OCC related), that you automatically get the prerequisite, even if it's not listed. I remember because I was particularly happy with the rules clarification. Ah, there it is: page 299, para 2.

I don't seem to read the RUE p.299 col.1 para.2 reference the same way you are reading it. It doesn't mention anything about prerequisites.

Errr... yes, that would be page 299, column 2, 2nd complete paragraph. My bad.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Count Jester wrote:Re: multiple d6 for stats:
I figured everyone gets 3d6 to start. If the RCC gets 4d6, then they have a 'bonus' of 1d6 that is rolled after exceptionality is determined. If it's 2d6, then they have a 'penalty' of 1d6. One of the initial dice rolled is made a different color and removed from the total after exceptionality is determined. This fits directly with the rules stated in both the RMB and URMB.

Can you please provide the references that discuss this?

I think Post #304 starts this one off (Page 21, 4th post down, at least on my computer). As for a rules reference: RUE: Page 279, Character Creation: Sections "Three six-sided dice (3d6)", and "Exceptional right off the bat". Similar sections exist in RMB, RCE, and the other PB main rules books that I've seen.

Errata: Nit-pick about commas:
When stating when classes get additional skills for either the 'Other' or 'Secondary' categories, commas have often been left out. Specific example: Rogue Scholar secondary skills. Also, it is my understanding that there are supposed to be commas between the second to last number and the 'and' in these sentences. These have been included apparently at random. Specific example: Rogue Scholar OCC related skills vs. Rogue Scientist OCC related skills.

Rules Clarification Request: Rogue Scholar Teaching ability:
No restrictions for PC's are included on how many of what skills can be learned when. Nor is it stated that these skills wouldn't advance like normal secondary skills. Though I like this (I'm a Power Gamer) because it tends to be much more realistic of the real world (and I'm a Power Gamer), this also goes against the whole OCC skill restriction thing. But I like it

Suggestion to PB: So updating books for errata is a pain when they have a deadline. Instead of doing it just before the book is due to be released, you might want to keep an up to date electronic copy on file that gets updated with errata once every week or two. This might take 10 minutes a week once all the currently known issues are processed. It's probably too far to go to suggest that you do the same for an errata web page, but I figured I'd plug it anyway.

Shawn Merrow wrote: Try the The Cutting Room Floor for errata of some of the other books.

Thanks for the link.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Borast wrote:

Tenchi Jeff wrote:Found one!


Page 329, the following W.P.'s, Energy Pistol, Energy Rifle, and Mega-Damage Weapons. There is not any W.P. Bonuses listed for these.

Wouldn't that be in the combat section again? Y'know, the old +3 Aimed, +1 Burst, no bonus wild...

WP bonuses and the Aimed/Burst bonuses are separate things.

???

Since when?

Without the proficiency, you're shooting without bonuses. The proficiency gives you the listed bonuses. Far back as Robotech (my first introduction to the wonderful world of Palladium Books in 83/84[?]), that has been black letter.

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:

RainOfSteel wrote:

Borast wrote:

Tenchi Jeff wrote:<Snip>

<Snip>

<Snip>

+3 Aimed +1 Burst went out the window a long time ago.

The bonuses for Modern W.P.s can be found on RUE page 360.

~ Josh

What???



>Sigh!<

Tinker Dragoon wrote:The key word here is "instruction." Secondary Skills are learned independently without any kind of instruction, save what one might read in a book or see in a video (and no, you can not learn to fight effectively from action movies ).

True.

In anycase, does this mean that they have changed the way the text reads in the Secondary Skills? I always read that as something that one learned outside one's main-line of training...much like an Engineer taking a drama course, not necessarily something that you pick-up by reading a book or two.

However, I do (whether running the game or playing in it), follow the limits as indicated in the OCC write-ups.

Borast wrote:

RainOfSteel wrote:

Borast wrote:

Tenchi Jeff wrote:Found one!


Page 329, the following W.P.'s, Energy Pistol, Energy Rifle, and Mega-Damage Weapons. There is not any W.P. Bonuses listed for these.

Wouldn't that be in the combat section again? Y'know, the old +3 Aimed, +1 Burst, no bonus wild...

WP bonuses and the Aimed/Burst bonuses are separate things.

???

Since when?

Always.

Borast wrote:Without the proficiency, you're shooting without bonuses. The proficiency gives you the listed bonuses. Far back as Robotech (my first introduction to the wonderful world of Palladium Books in 83/84[?]), that has been black letter.

Ok, I see what you're saying (RMB p.33).

I have always thought of the Trained, Aimed, Burst, and Wild sections as separate.

Ancient WP are all listed separately, and all have their own bonus.

Modern WP all have a level-up bonus under the "Trained" section.

For whatever reason, I have just always equated the "Trained" section as a universal "Modern WP" description (as though a separate list of Modern WP skills were listed) because that section appeared pretty much like the Ancient WP descriptions, and then thought of the other sections as separate.

Don't ask me why, I've never noticed it before. It certainly goes all the way back to 1987 when I started with the Robotech RPG (and that says the same thing the RMB does, effectively).

A technical reading shows that you are correct.

--------------------------

Josh is, of course, also correct that RUE has superseded the old material with new bonuses and categories. This does not mean that I am not stuck in an old gear thinking about it.

Just wondering if most the errata was sumed up at some point in this tread I cant find because of its size. Any one have a link?

Togashi Johnathan wrote:

Gabriel_V wrote:Incidentally, does anyone else's book have this error:

On page 340, second paragraph under the heading "M.D.C. Body Armor"

"As always, a roll o 1-4 misses."

oddly, there is a strange mark next to the "o" which MIGHT be a lowercase "f" but is printed very tiny, in a diagonal alignment, and moved up like an exponent to a number.

I didn't have time to look at all 23+ pages to see if anyone answered this, but i'm going to anyways.

Look here for how to search the topic to see if material has already been covered.

keynup wrote:I'll second Riftmaker. It would be nice if there was a condensed version of the errata (even if it wasn't official)

An earlier poster did a "summary" of material up to a certain point in the topic.

Why not make a summary of material after that point and post it along with a link to the last summary post?

Oh, and attributing the summarized material would be highly polite (as opposed to just summarizing the material without attribution).